challan. whercas he has mcntioncd onlv Rs. 100/- Ibr the violation of Section l22ll77 of the M.V.Act in duplicatc challan. It is I'urther alleged that hc vcrified another original clrallan No.330444, which was issued by the petitioner, wherein he collected al1 amount of Rs.650/- towards compounding lee from the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP36U8873 and issued original challan and whereas he has nrentioned only Rs. 100/- towards compounding fee for violation under Section 1221177 ol the M.V.Act in the duplicate challan. Similarly, the Inspector ol Police verified other three original challans bearing Nos.693530, 693510, 693588 contained in challan Book No.6936 wherein, the petitioner collected Rs.400/- towards compounding fee in the original challan, whereas in the duplicate challans, hc has mentioned only Rs.l00/- in each case. The Inspector of Police having noticed the irregularities secured the presence of drivers in respect offive challans issued on different dates against the traffic violations by mentioning one amount in the original challan and mentioning another amount in the duplicate challans, recorded their staten.rents. It is alleged that the petitioner comn.ritted loss to the Govemment Treasury.
